View report page

130
your Council were strongly of opinion that the duty of complying with the
By-laws in regard to the deposit of plans and the giving of notice should only
be placed upon the person executing the work.
Your Council resolve that the London County Council be informed that it
is the opinion of this Authority that the onus of complying with the By-laws
in regard to the deposit of drainage plans, and the giving of notice before the
commencement of sanitary work, should be upon the builder and not the owner,
and that the By-laws made by the London County Council in regard to
drainage and sanitary work should be amended if necessary to make this clear.
This was approved by your Council on the 24th November, 1909, but the
By-laws have not yet been amended to meet the difficulty created by the
decision in Kershaw v. Brooks.
Your Council received a Report of the Medical Officer of Health upon the
subject of further amendment of the Drainage By-laws from the Public Health
Committee on loth July, 1909, to the following effect:—
In accordance with the instructions of your Committee of the 31st March
last with regard to the By-laws made by the London County Council under the
Metropolis Management Act, 1855, Section 202, and the Metropolis Management
Acts Amendment (By-laws) Act, 1899, I beg to report as follows:—
A communication dated the ltith March, 1909, has been received from the
Borough of Hampstead drawing attention to an Appeal of that Council
(Kershaw v. Brooks) which recently came before the Divisional Court by way
of Special Case from the decision of Mr. Plowden dismissing certain
summonses issued (1) under the Plan By-laws and (2) under the Drainage
By-laws made by the London County Council. The question for decision was
as to who was the proper person to be brought before the Magistrate for infringement
of these By-laws. The Council summoned the responsible person actually
carrying out the work, and the summonses were dismissed by the Magistrate
on the ground that they should have been issued against the person who
ordered the work to be done. The Divisional Court sustained the decision of the
Magistrate, with the result that the hitherto invariable practice of proceeding
against the responsible person who actually carries out the works will be no
longer open to the Borough Councils, but inquiries will have to be entered
upon as to who is responsible for the work being done i.e., uho has given the
order. As the matter is of such serious importance, the Hampstead Borough
Council have communicated with the London County Council with a view to
the By-laws being amended so as to validate the practice which has hitherto
existed, and to make it clear, either by an interpretation clause or otherwise,
that a builder or contractor in control of the works shall, in addition to the
existing reinedy against the owner, be responsible in cases of breaches of the
above By-laws, and ask this Council to support the action taken. It is
unhesitatingly desirable that the St. Pancras Borough Council should support
the action of the Hampstead Borough Council.
The interpretation clause is not only required for the purpose of making it
clear who is the person who should deposit plans and the person who should
comply with the requirements of construction of drainage, but also for the
purpose of making it clear what is a rain-water pipe, a waste pipe, a soil